Infernalist:Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: NetOwl: Is there any good reason for this thing to be legal?

In free societies, the burden is placed upon the government to justify prohibiting actions or rights of ownership.

In my opinion that's where things go wrong with the gun debate. The question should be 'is there a valid reason to allow this' instead of 'is there a valid reason to disallow this'.

Valid reason: the Second Amendment. Now, you tell me why the Second Amendment doesn't cover it. You don't have to like that law, and you can argue that the time has come to change that law, but until that happens, it is the law of the land. I am not some "gun nut" nor do I think that the Second Amendment is the only thing stopping tyranny, but that is the law. As long as there is an enumerated, specific right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights, the burden falls upon those favoring restrictions to justify them.

Second Amendment doesn't apply unless you're a well-regulated militia. But you knew that.

No, I know a lot of people like to parrot that mistaken belief that the reference to a militia is somehow a restriction of a right expressly granted to "the People," especially those with no legal education and a piss-poor understanding of history.

TuteTibiImperes:Dimensio: NetOwl: Is there any good reason for this thing to be legal?

In free societies, the burden is placed upon the government to justify prohibiting actions or rights of ownership.

In my opinion that's where things go wrong with the gun debate. The question should be 'is there a valid reason to allow this' instead of 'is there a valid reason to disallow this'.

Valid reason: the Second Amendment. Now, you tell me why the Second Amendment doesn't cover it. You don't have to like that law, and you can argue that the time has come to change that law, but until that happens, it is the law of the land. I am not some "gun nut" nor do I think that the Second Amendment is the only thing stopping tyranny, but that is the law. As long as there is an enumerated, specific right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights, the burden falls upon those favoring restrictions to justify them.

For those of you ready to lose it because it's a gun, and "ZOMGZZZ SCARY!!! NOBODY SHOULD OWN ONE!!!1111!!!" let me point you to the price of this thing:

$6,000.

That's out of the range for about 99% of gun owners. And the ones who DO have the money to spend for something like this typically aren't the kind of crazies you'd worry about handling firearms. So everybody just calm down.

Infernalist:Headso: Infernalist: Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: NetOwl: Is there any good reason for this thing to be legal?

In free societies, the burden is placed upon the government to justify prohibiting actions or rights of ownership.

In my opinion that's where things go wrong with the gun debate. The question should be 'is there a valid reason to allow this' instead of 'is there a valid reason to disallow this'.

Valid reason: the Second Amendment. Now, you tell me why the Second Amendment doesn't cover it. You don't have to like that law, and you can argue that the time has come to change that law, but until that happens, it is the law of the land. I am not some "gun nut" nor do I think that the Second Amendment is the only thing stopping tyranny, but that is the law. As long as there is an enumerated, specific right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights, the burden falls upon those favoring restrictions to justify them.

Second Amendment doesn't apply unless you're a well-regulated militia. But you knew that.

uh no, the right to bear arms is for the people so they have the tools to form an effective militia if necessary, read the actual text of the amendment.

Except we already have that well-regulated militia. It's called "The National Guard."

The militia is defined in the national code:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.(b) The classes of the militia are-

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

That's not really the way the law works. Stuff tends to be legal until someone makes it illegal. And thanks to the nonsensical bullshiat that has overrun firearms legislation, what gets classified as "illegal" doesn't necessarily make a hell of a lot of sense.

A 10/22, which is basically a step up from a pellet rifle, can be considered an "assault weapon" if it has bayonet lug (because there are an awful lot of bayonet-related crimes) and a barrel shroud (which basically prevents you from burning your hand if the barrel gets hot).

In this case, because of the paranoia about automatic weapons, there is a lot defining what constitutes an illegal weapon based on certain mechanisms producing a high rate of fire, rather than anything regarding the rate of fire itself.

I suspect that this rifle will be much like .50 caliber rifles: anti-gun activists will demand bans based upon irrational fears of damage that may be caused with it, while the firearm itself will be too impractical for anything other than novelty recreational use and thus no actual significant criminal use with it will occur. Additionally, the bans demanded will be broad-reaching to affect a substantial quantity of different firearms. The only fundamental difference will be that .50 caliber rifles will be useful for competition shooting, while the rifle described in the article will be useful only for wasting large quantities of ammunition.

Turning a closed-bolt, fixed barrel rifle into a belt-fed quasi-machinegun is farking ridiculous. The thing will melt the first time the owner takes it out into the woods to make a HEY Y'ALL, WATCH THIS! YouTube video.

Um, no, only you seem to 'know' that. No constitutional scholar I have ever seen, nor apparently SCOTUS, seems to think thats what it means. But I guess you seem to think you know more about Constitutional scholarship than all of them combined. Please, enlighten us.

Quit wetting your pants over bump fire devices. You can take a shoe string and a semi-auto AK, or any semi-auto gun with a reciprocating charging handle, and turn it into a machine gun.

Tie shoe string to reciprocating handle, wrap it around the trigger of the gun, pull it tight until it fires. If you keep your "trigger finger" which is looped around the shoe string in the same spot the gun will keep firing as the reciprocating handle makes its motions.

The ATF actually registered a SHOE STRING with a serial number on it as a machine gun prior to the 1986 manufacturing ban. A SHOE STRING is what you need to make a machine gun out of a semi-auto rifle.

Mass casualties attributed to this practice: 0

Legally you're making a machine gun if you do this. Bump firing is not making a machine gun (which is why such devices that assist in it are legal, sometimes, depending on how the ATF feels that day) but you can make an illegal machine gun with a freaking SHOE STRING.

How many threads are we gonna have on this gun this week? This is the 6th one.The mods greenlight any thread that will help push their political opinions. It's why there's rarely a thread that puts firearms or Jews in a positive light.

// f- threads, pro posts barely/rarely survive.

You're paranoid, the threads about guns seem to universally turn into a bunch of gun nuts spouting pro-gun anti-regulation propaganda.

[just pretend that I know how to make cute little music notes]Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun? (Had a gun)Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun? (Had a gun)There'd be no more crime, 'cause everybody'd have a gun(Makes sense!)Wouldn't it be great if everybody had a gun?

We've already seen what happens when nobody does. But your party has always been fully supportive of the get on the trains quietly program.

And meanwhile, back in reality, California has passed legislation that classifies any rifle that accepts a detachable magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds of ammunition as an ASSAULT WEAPON, which bans their sale or purchase. And anyone who already owns one has to register it.

What a frightened, cowed group of subjects America is becoming.

Can someone remind me of the percentage of Americans that falls victim to these evil long guns every year?

Infernalist:Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: NetOwl: Is there any good reason for this thing to be legal?

In free societies, the burden is placed upon the government to justify prohibiting actions or rights of ownership.

In my opinion that's where things go wrong with the gun debate. The question should be 'is there a valid reason to allow this' instead of 'is there a valid reason to disallow this'.

Valid reason: the Second Amendment. Now, you tell me why the Second Amendment doesn't cover it. You don't have to like that law, and you can argue that the time has come to change that law, but until that happens, it is the law of the land. I am not some "gun nut" nor do I think that the Second Amendment is the only thing stopping tyranny, but that is the law. As long as there is an enumerated, specific right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights, the burden falls upon those favoring restrictions to justify them.

Second Amendment doesn't apply unless you're a well-regulated militia. But you knew that.

SirEattonHogg:If it's only semi-auto then how does it fire like a machine gun? Doesn't it only fire as fast as one's trigger finger?

I dunno, it sounds like its just gonna jam more than a normal magazine fed gun (unless as someone mentioned above - you have someone patiently help you feed that belt in). But, I dunno much about guns (other than the .22 rimfire gun I keep around for plinking), so I'm happy to hear otherwise.

It does fire only once per trigger "pull". It's just designed so that the recoil moves the trigger away from your finger (thus letting up on it) and then brings it back to your finger (thus firing the next round.)

Go ahead, own any number of guns, any kind you want. And I mean ANYTHING. All you need is a gun ownership endorsement on your license or state id, therefore there's no actual database of gun owners.

I'm close to this position. The heavier the stuff the higher the license requirements (same as a CDL is more strict than an ordinary driver's license) but the only things I would utterly prohibit are chemical and bio weapons. Furthermore, nukes would be subject to the same security that they are in military hands--while you would be able to own one you could never actually possess it as that would violate the two-man rule. That doesn't make them totally useless, though--Acme Asteroid Movers could go bring home a rock with an Orion drive. They would have to bring along a few people that the government considers nuke-certified to handle the actual weapons.

udhq:This will empty out the prisons for HUGE new mandatory minimums for ANY serious crime committed by a licensed gun owner. You commit a rape, robbery, murder, assault or threat with that stamp on your licence, you never see the outside of a prison cell again in your life.

grimlock1972:Yeah sooner or later this thing is going to end up being used in a criminal act.

Why? They are near impossible to aim, expensive, and less likely to hit whatever target you may have. Criminal's will stick to the cheap handguns they typically always have, and these will be range toys for people with money to burn.

Infernalist:Nabb1: TuteTibiImperes: Dimensio: NetOwl: Is there any good reason for this thing to be legal?

In free societies, the burden is placed upon the government to justify prohibiting actions or rights of ownership.

In my opinion that's where things go wrong with the gun debate. The question should be 'is there a valid reason to allow this' instead of 'is there a valid reason to disallow this'.

Valid reason: the Second Amendment. Now, you tell me why the Second Amendment doesn't cover it. You don't have to like that law, and you can argue that the time has come to change that law, but until that happens, it is the law of the land. I am not some "gun nut" nor do I think that the Second Amendment is the only thing stopping tyranny, but that is the law. As long as there is an enumerated, specific right to bear arms in the Bill of Rights, the burden falls upon those favoring restrictions to justify them.

Second Amendment doesn't apply unless you're a well-regulated militia. But you knew that.

uh no, the right to bear arms is for the people so they have the tools to form an effective militia if necessary, read the actual text of the amendment.

indy_kid:dittybopper: Dadoody: You can own a machine gun with the proper license.

Not if it was manufactured after 1986.

Actually, any Class 3 Dealer can buy an MG built after 1986, and they're far cheaper than most on the market. You can't SELL it to anyone other than the military, LE or another dealer, but don't let the facts get in the way of your post.

That doesn't change the fact that your average person can't legally buy a MG built after '86. But at least you didn't let semantics get in the way of seeming like a jackass.

Sure, it's useful when aliens invade and force you and your buddy to run shirtless through the jungle, killing wave after wave of bad guys, dodging pillars of fire, climbing a waterfall for some reason, then blowing up a big red heart-like thing while a bunch of weird spiders try to eat your face, but that's about it for overthrowing a tyrannical government, as the Founders had recently done when they drafted the Constitution.

... of course, actually attempting to overthrow the government is treason. So, there's no reason the government shouldn't make firing one of these weapons illegal. But to prevent ownership of it would make it more difficult to oppose tyranny and would violate the second amendment.

Sure, it's useful when aliens invade and force you and your buddy to run shirtless through the jungle, killing wave after wave of bad guys, dodging pillars of fire, climbing a waterfall for some reason, then blowing up a big red heart-like thing while a bunch of weird spiders try to eat your face, but that's about it.

Because they're fun to fire at the range every now and then if you've got the money to burn for the device and for the ammo. There's not much practical use for your average civilian though.

If it's only semi-auto then how does it fire like a machine gun? Doesn't it only fire as fast as one's trigger finger?

I dunno, it sounds like its just gonna jam more than a normal magazine fed gun (unless as someone mentioned above - you have someone patiently help you feed that belt in). But, I dunno much about guns (other than the .22 rimfire gun I keep around for plinking), so I'm happy to hear otherwise.